Totally rediculuse comparison. There is nothing so distinct in politics. It's more like all voted for coffee but used different coffee beans. A relative majority is a majority. Not the best system, but no worse than av.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
Totally rediculuse comparison. There is nothing so distinct in politics. It's more like all voted for coffee but used different coffee beans. A relative majority is a majority. Not the best system, but no worse than av.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
I find it genuinely concerning that so many right wing FPTP supporters can be presented with facts and figures, minorities and majorities and statistics out the backside, and still fail to grasp the mathematics of the situation.
Incorrect. A vote for is simply a vote for. It's like saying if I vote no to AV then I vote for FPTP. That is a logical fallacy.
That doesn't matter, the extremist parties are incredibly unlikely to end up with more than 50% of the vote, the shift is more likely to be towards the centre.
Also, without knowing how the preferences are going to pan out, the 3rd/4th/5th/etc preferences could be moot as those parties had already been dropped in the initial rounds.
I think you two have massively over-analysed the example. I think it gets across its point fairly well.
The beer / coffee analogy isn't "rediculuse" it's a decent analogy for the split vote problem. The split vote issue is the most significant difference between AV and FPTP.
In a multi-party system, you need to address split votes (between different pubs, or different coffee beans). FPTP can't do this, AV can.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
1) The vote isnt between FPTP and AV, the vote is between AV and not-AV
2) Your logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy
It can't, the biggest problem is boundaries something av is not doing anything about. It also introduces unfair votes. By some people having effective multiple votes where others only get one. Please don't say but it's only counted once in each round. It may well be, that doesn't stop the statistical analysis and the weight that gives all parties to shift there policies. So yes some votes do have more weight.
They didn't vote against the winner, they voted for other candidates. Seriously, why are you twisting what is such a simple concept. FPTP is giving you the opportunity to put your support for a candidate. If you choose to twist that then it's not the fault of the system is it?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
There isn't any difference.
Is it really that difficult to make up your mind? Instead of just voting for your favourite you then have to have to say which others you wouldn't mind. It is the silly namby pamby stuff that is slowing decisions down. Make up your mind. One choice. Simple.
I am no real fan of FPTP but I find it a lot better than AV. It is decisive, if you want rid of a party then vote for someone else and they will be kicked out. If we had AV we might have had a Liberal/Labour government because of the change in seats. I think a lot of the population would have liked that less than Liberal Conservative.
I actually really like The Economists FPTP+ system.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Ok nero120, i am going to give everybody in this thread an ice cream. A delicious Magnum or something. Except, i am not going to give you one. By not giving you an Ice Cream, i am clearly in opposition against you.
You seem to be under the impression that to be against you, i would have to literally take a Magnum you already have away from you.
Not giving you the Magnum is clearly intended as a snub
Last edited:
It's actually a great analogy as it demonstrates the issue of vote splitting, something that AV addresses.
But they want to get their own waaaaaayyyy!
We're voting for someone to represent our interests in Parliament, to argue that this person shouldn't be the one with broadest support across the electorate, rather just the person with the biggest separate bloc of support seems perverse.
That is not the problem, the problem I have is the way av does it. Av is not a solution and isn't a change. It is a. Great example of what happens in hung parliaments(which can happen in either system, so a bit of a side line) dealing behind closed doors to choice that satisfies no one and solves nothing.
You voting for someone to represent YOUR interests, not OUR. It may not be the best for the country, but it is best for you.
To be quite honest, I have no idea what you are talking about... If you're trying to convince me it's not working. Fundamentally I do not see why just because you vote for a candidate with minority support and he/she doesn't win, thatis "unfair".
That is less to do with FPTP and more with constituencies. Labour, in 2010, got 500k less seats than the Conservatives did in 1997 but have nearly 100 more seats. It is voter distribution rather than the system in which they vote.